|
This week, I’ve been thinking about democracy. The reason we are such fierce defenders of a strong American foreign policy is because it ultimately defends our own nation — our sovereignty, our democracy, our values. What was the secret sauce that made our democracy so successful, when so many others have collapsed? And do we still have it?
For democracies to be successful, they must be rooted in the political and social virtues that enable democratic government to survive — industry, temperance, moderation, sincerity, prudence. Our founding fathers recognized this and knew that a public that was unable to keep its base instincts in check — its hatreds, its bigotries, its anger — lacked the ability to govern itself. How can we as a nation govern if we as individuals can’t govern ourselves?
Our founders were not perfect, but their commitment to these virtues allowed them to establish the greatest nation in history — what Reagan compared to the “shining city upon the hill.” These virtues inspired not just Americans, but the world, and led to victories against fascism, communism, and Nazism.
Over time, however, a combination of trends — modernization, waning religious identification, isolation from community structures, and collapsing family life — meant these virtues were no longer in fashion. Instead, many on the Left embraced “personal freedom” and “openness” without defining the limits of such things: Should we be open to authoritarianism? Anti-semitism? Violence?
The answer, at least for the progressive fringe, increasingly became “yes.” Without reference to traditional Western values, no single way of life could be considered “better” than another. And thus began our descent into moral relativism.
But now the Right is threatened by that same moral relativism. Insidious views that have the potential to derail our democracy with authoritarian principles are amplified — either because of understandable though misguided “what-aboutism” or because of appeals to free speech. It should not be hard to discern: Allowing someone to speak — as we must — and amplifying and encouraging that speech are two different things. It was unconstitutional to ban the Nazis from marching in Skokie. But it wouldn’t have been unconstitutional for a synagogue to refuse to invite them to give a sermon, or for a black pastor to refuse to give an audience to the KKK.
Nick Fuentes’s views have no place in the conservative movement, and it’s not because of his views on Israel. He has no place in the conservative movement because he is a self-described neo-Nazi. He has no place in the conservative movement because he is a white supremacist who calls for an “Aryan victory,” glorifies Jim Crow, and praises Stalin. These authoritarian views attack the very heart of what conservativism is about: conserving the democratic rights enumerated in our Constitution and the moral virtues of this free society. For so-called conservatives such as Tucker Carlson to willingly amplify his views under the banner of free speech is the trojan horse that will threaten the movement and the country as a whole.
As President Washington wrote to the Jews of Rhode Island, the United States “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” There are many policy debates in this world that are genuinely hard. Whether you should accommodate Nazism and racism is not one of them.
It is, of course, a good sign that some conservatives came out forcefully and strongly against both Carlson and Fuentes. They passed the first test — one failed by the Democratic Party which has recently fallen victim to its most authoritarian followers whose views undermine the causes of true equality, women’s liberation, and free speech that once defined that party. But until we can reorient both the Left and the Right toward core American virtues and toward the rejection of base hatreds, I fear moral relativism will threaten to destroy both parties — and our democracy along with it.
- Carrie Filipetti, Executive Director of The Vandenberg Coalition
|
